Is Arma 3 authentic?

[dm 9]

You can go round and round and round in circles until you're blue in the face.

Point is, BI is NOT going to scrap ALL their art work because a few rivet counters are unhappy that "all the things are unrealistic!1!!1!!!11!!1!"

And at the end of the day, what the model looks like has little to no effect on how it behaves ingame.

[Black Cat 10]

I don't understand this. The Mi-48 IS NOT A HAVOC. And BIS does how they work, and that's what matters. not how they look. The Mi-48 is essentially a Hind replacement. The model for it could be a giant hexacam potato, but if it functioned correctly, then most people wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Smurf 12]

Are you blind or trying to go in circles again?

That was for me?

Did i missed something?! :confused:

[NoRailgunner 0]

Can we just all agree that what I already suggested:

Its easier if you take A3 as an alternate/fictional game and not as an true/real milsim.

:D

[antoineflemming 14]

Please read and try again! Btw 2035 minus 100 is still 1935 and we are actually in year 2012. World War I was 1914-1918.... Now go and try to find out when the first Mi-28's where flying in active duty. Maybe you have luck this time....

I was saying that NOW, in 2012, which is less than 100 years from WWI, we aren't using those weapons. Here's a better example. In the 1970s the U.S. for example was using M16s. America wasn't still using WW2 era weapons, from 30 years before. The Mi-28 has been around for 30 years (since 1982). Do you really think that the MI-28, a helicopter first made in the early '80s, will still be flown over 50 years from that time, in 2035?

[NoRailgunner 0]

antoineflemming - there is a difference between "first flight/demonstration" and "fielded/operational" - first Mi-28s were delivered/fielded around 2006. There are helicopters like the UH-1,CH-53 and other old vehicles/systems which are still in service. ;) Now back to crossing the Mi-24 with an Mi-28 helicopter - how real will this Mi-48 "Kajman" bastard ever be? Or is it just that devs were a little bit drunk/funny and keen on making something like a futuristic looking for OPFOR helicopter? Guess this Mi-48 will be soon revealed as: "One of the best Takistani/Iranian joint venture projects - build and assembled at the glorious scrapyard of AWESOME Inc." Let's wait and see if BIS is making a great + challenging military game and not one of those all action, no substance games.

[liquidpinky 11]

Do you really think that the MI-28, a helicopter first made in the early '80s, will still be flown over 50 years from that time, in 2035?

Careful with that line of thought, the Hind is fast getting close to that magical 50 years. Done 40 in service already and been around since it's first flight in 1969, now it is easy to imagine them doing another 10 years easily isn't it? ;)

Another weapon that has been around for a very long time, and the clue is in the name, Colt 1911.

People seem to overlook that the Mi-48 is actually a mongrel with three parents. The Co-axial rotor seems to get overlooked a lot due to the Mi-28 heritage been the most in your face part but this heli is part Hind, part Mi-28 and part whatever Kamov you would like it to be.

If approached in a realistic manner by the devs it should be slower than the Hind but a more stable weapon platform with the same or similar capacity for cargo or personnel. Maybe even higher capacity thanks to the extra lift per horsepower you gain from co-axial rotor set-ups.

Whether this heli would be real or not I don't really care, it sure as hell will be an interesting system to put into use and test it's capabilities.

[antoineflemming 14]

antoineflemming - there is a difference between "first flight/demonstration" and "fielded/operational" - first Mi-28s were delivered/fielded around 2006. There are helicopters like the UH-1,CH-53 and other old vehicles/systems which are still in service. ;) Now back to crossing the Mi-24 with an Mi-28 helicopter - how real will this Mi-48 "Kajman" bastard ever be? Or is it just that devs were a little bit drunk/funny and keen on making something like a futuristic looking for OPFOR helicopter? Guess this Mi-48 will be soon revealed as: "One of the best Takistani/Iranian joint venture projects - build and assembled at the glorious scrapyard of AWESOME Inc." Let's wait and see if BIS is making a great + challenging military game and not one of those all action, no substance games.

Well, your question: "How real will this Mi-48 "Kajman" bastard ever be?" I don't think you are or I am in a position to answer that question. One helicopter doesn't make the whole game an all action, no substance game. Are you saying that the Mi-48 will make or break the game for you?

[batto 17]

One of the best Takistani/Iranian joint venture projects - build and assembled at the glorious scrapyard of AWESOME Inc.

This! Railgun tank could be "Russian top secret project that started in 90s and was later developed with collaboration of Future Gunz corp., China owned multinational research company". Such explanation is everything I need :D

[NoRailgunner 0]

This threesome bastard will be only a bit "game breaking" if its bugged/not useable ingame. Now I'm just curious if all advantages and disadvantages of his three parents (helicopters) will play a role in operating/flying the Mi-48 "Kajman" in A3.... hope that BIS will create possible/typical behaviour for all or most A3 vehicles and stuff.

[Black Cat 10]

Remember back in '09 when there was a rumor that Kamov and Mil were merging and that they might combine some major choppers? Well, yes, that happened in the ArmAverse, and that is most likely going to be the formal explanation for the Kajman.

Another explanation would be a Chinese or Iran copy helicopter like the Panha 2091/96.

[Corvinus 35]

I don't really want to start that discussion again, folks, just have an urge to express my feelings; what I really want Arma 3 to be is not just another shooter with tonnes of gimmicks, but as accurate as possible representation of a future warfare. I hope I am not alone in this.

What I mean by "tonnes of gimmics" - it's addictions to gameplay that put "fun" above realism (I put the word "fun" in quotes because for me, and not only me, more realism = more fun). A vivid example of such approach is regeneration of health, which is pretty much mainstream for modern shooters, though I don't think we will see it in Arma series ever. That's it, there shouldn't be any magical "see-through-walls"-tech, but improved thermooptics, there shouldn't be any "cloak of invisibility", but actual materials and systems to reduce detectability of soldiers and vehicles by the aforementioned thermal devices. As i can see from screenshots and videos, Arma 3 is being made rather with realism in mind, not "fun".

Now, what I mean by "representation of a future warfare" - it's two interconnected things - a widespread use of unmanned vehicles and a network-centric warfare, including Future Soldier systems for both OpFor and BlueFor. The drone part is pretty self-explanatory - there should be sufficient number of airborne, ground-based and water-based unmanned vehicles. Network-centric warfare can be implemented in the gameplay in the form of information (visual, primarily) for a player. Since OFP we had marks on the ground, telling us where we should go, marks for friendlies and enemies - now all those things can have realistic background, now mods like ShackTac Fireteam HUD can have realistic background, now you can tell if your teammate is injured, and if yes - how serious, not because of gameplay convention, but because he have a system on him that reads his heartbeat etc. Let's not forget about enhanced communication with, let us say, artillery or air support. It is a whole new level of gameplay possibilities, which can be realistically explained.

Now back to the Mi-48. Sure, I can live with it, but still. Main problem with it, in my opinion, is that it looks like a typical "gimmick" - "Let's just mix together various existing designs and as a result there be one cool, badass (I swear, soon I'll start to hate this word) copter! Right, guys?! Right?". Wrong. As a result we have an unrealistic and ugly monstrosity. "Ugly" part is self-explanatory - this thing is uglier than the original Mi-28, and that's not easy at all. Now for "unrealistic" - it's not the coaxial rotors that put me off most, but the infantry compartment. The whole point of Mi-28 is that it's basically a Mi-24 without an infantry compartment. As for coaxial rotors - some people make claims that two design bureaus "Kamov" and "Mil" were intended to merge in the past. That's not true. They entered the state-controlled holding Russian Helicopters for getting a financial state support, indeed, but there wasn't any talks about any joint developments, in fact, they are still competing with each other.

I bet, if there was something like this in place of Mi-48, there wouldn't be a half of perturbation. Why? It is believable. It is closer to our reality. After all, I don't recall anyone to be dissatisfied with this UGV. Is it fictional? Yes. Is it believable, does it adds some new gameplay capabilities? Yes and yes. I don't care about fictional stuff as long as it's believable. As long as it serve some purpose. Any attack helicopter could be in place of Mi-48 and do the same job (even flying potato, as Black Cat said), so I can't see why there is a need in this particular design to be around. Of course, everyone decides for himself, what is believable and what is not, for me Mi-48 is not, maybe for everyone else it's ok. As I said at the start, I can live with it, as it is only one vehicle out of many, but I will never say that it looks realistic and in place.

Thanks for your time.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Corvinus

[scarecrow398 43]

Actually is a Mi-28. Other angles: http://englishrussia.com/2011/09/02/the-place-where-real-pilots-are-made/

Didn't you confuse the links?

No, the lightining in the photo and the 3 random guys blocking the view somewhat led me to belive it was being passed as a 'Mi-48' which is fictional (in which case doesn't really fit with what the thread is trying to get across)

[max power 21]

No, he was just saying that it's based on a real helicopter.

[sektor 2]

...as accurate as possible representation of a future warfare...

...It is a whole new level of gameplay possibilities, which can be realistically explained...

How can you know what will future bring, trough the crystal ball? And why would it be more fun than well made fictional conflict put in 1985 with chessy graphics, simple missions and likable characters that started all this?

[purepassion 22]

No, the lightining in the photo and the 3 random guys blocking the view somewhat led me to belive it was being passed as a 'Mi-48' which is fictional (in which case doesn't really fit with what the thread is trying to get across)

Just to make it clear :)

The Kaiman is based on the KA-50 and the Mi-28, this means there is no exact real counterpart atm. Looking at a picture of e.g. the KA-50, apart from the coaxial rotor system, one can see there are not many similarities. If you look at the Mi-28 however, you can see it serves as the base for most of the Mi-48's design and thus it is suited best for a comparison and to show how the Mi-48 uses mostly elements from the Mi-28.

Like Max said, it's basically just the best example for this bird.

[Corvinus 35]

How can you know what will future bring, trough the crystal ball?

Because of prototypes currently being tested. It's 2035, not 2100.

And why would it be more fun than well made fictional conflict put in 1985 with chessy graphics, simple missions and likable characters that started all this?

Because we already had "fictional conflict put in 1985", as well as "fictional conflict put in 2009", but there never was "fictional conflict put in 2035" before.

[FeoFUN 10]

Remember back in '09 when there was a rumor that Kamov and Mil were merging and that they might combine some major choppers? Well, yes, that happened in the ArmAverse, and that is most likely going to be the formal explanation for the Kajman.

engineers_facepalm.jpg

---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 PM ----------

The Mi-28 has been around for 30 years (since 1982). Do you really think that the MI-28, a helicopter first made in the early '80s, will still be flown over 50 years from that time, in 2035?

Sure. Especially if to remember when the Mi-28, ACTUALLY, entered in to the real serial production and service. BTW Apache will remain on duty at least until 2035, too. And given that each next generation takes much more time on developing and the most part of military programmes facing the delays - i won't be surprised if we'll find out that these two helicopters are still in service even in 2050(if we'll be still alive LOL).

Cobra - nearly 50 years in service and still in production.

Mi-24 - more than 40 years in service and still in production.

Mi-8 - nearly 50 years in service and still in production.

Edited May 31, 2012 by FeoFUN

[slatts 1978]

de ja vu anyone?

[maddogx 13]

Is this discussion ever going to get anywhere productive?

[NoRailgunner 0]

Without Ouzo, Sirtaki and hot greek nymphs A3 is not authentic!! Now send BIS "must have" pictures/videos (HD format!) so they can evaluate all these things.... :cool:

[FeoFUN 10]

de ja vu anyone?

Yes it is. Since the question about the Mi-28's service and production life has been answered at least two times in this thread.

Edited May 31, 2012 by FeoFUN

[s1zzl3 1]

That's it, there shouldn't be any magical "see-through-walls"-tech, but improved thermooptics, there shouldn't be any "cloak of invisibility"

Side note: GR:FS was not meant to be a simulator at all, but also there's no specific time period for the game (it could be anywhere from 2015 - 2030+)

Is "magnetic vision" in the works? Probably not, but the DoD/DARPA does already have sensors that are man-portable that are used to see through walls, and they get used in Afghanistan currently. For the "invisibility cloak" - it doesn't make them invisible, more of an adaptive camouflage like an octopus, it's not perfect - just better. And that stuff is also in development - http://www.google.com/imgres?q=japanese+invisibility+cloak&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1280&bih=834&tbm=isch&tbnid=70eVhM7IQm73ZM:&imgrefurl=http://wn.com/invisibility&docid=oHjQQxw7vDzRPM&imgurl=http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PD83dqSfC0Y/0.jpg&w=480&h=360&ei=maXHT-uWHsz46QHt0o3NDw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=798&vpy=156&dur=276&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=85&ty=99&sig=101959625813969989244&page=1&tbnh=147&tbnw=198&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0,i:79 it's just not fielded yet - 2035 who knows? Do I think that this stuff should be implemented in the game? No, it wouldn't serve a purpose with the rest of ARMA 3.

Well enough of that, just thought I'd clarify.

Resume your arguments...

[Booster 1]

Perhaps Bohemia's vision of future warfare isn't so outrageous after all, take a look at what former Operation Desert Storm hospital commander and DARPA researcher Dr Richard Satava envisions warfare will be like 20 or 30 years from now.

"he's sitting in an office in Washington operating a surgical robot which is poised to operate on a solider wounded in Afghanistan 10800 kilometres away. That soldier has life-threatening injuries and to prevent blood loss or damage to his organs, he is injected with a solution that puts him into a temporary state of suspended animation. He needs an organ transplant, so Satava instructs the computer built into the surgical robot to print one using the soldier's stem cells."

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/technology-news/the-outrageous-surgeon-20120601-1zlqx.html

[sektor 2]

I'm wondering, is it easier to simulate a weapon or vehicle that is still in development, than to properly simulate let's say armor for M1A1.